I think most people on GEWar understand the lack of profitability of GEWar. This in turn stifles development and growth of the game.

What I think needs to be done is a development of a profit model which keeps the game balanced, but gives the game a great revenue source, perhaps rethinking what is already done with donorship itself.


Donorship in its previous essence (interception, army split), would arguably be too powerful for donorship only. It makes no sense as new users will be alienated, and often unwilling to put down the commitment or the money to continue playing.

What I think donorship should change is to a system which does not directly benefit, but makes things more convenient for donors.


In line with another web game, Tribal Wars (or at least I think its that), non-donors have all the same abilities, but donors have much more convenient methods of doing such. Such as having a longer queue for building buildings, etc.

This would be in line with the circles around resources, new icons, etc.


But where our donorship goes wrong is that it makes an extremely large gap between non-donors and donors through the income. It's not the worst, but it promotes straight attacking non-donors of alliances during wars, possibly making donorships, or possibly making people run out.

It makes a clear cut geo difference which creates an imbalance in the game of non-donators and donators.

From what I've seen, the most successful web games create a system where non-donators can still dominate the boards if they play smart and actively, but have to be much more active.


What am I thinking of?

One of which is jeweling, basically a donator only perk now, but tedious in itself. One thing I really thought of is making jewels pay for/donate for while jeweling is limited. I believe the old system did as such, but limiting much more permits trying jeweling.

We make there be a low jewel count for non donors each 24 hours (i.e.) 50 or 100, and make people pay or donate if they want to jewel more. It does create a geo gap but it forces effort on the donors so it would not be abused rampantly.

Next would be convenience based things. E-mails when armies are coming at you. Watchlists. E-mails to plant (or presetting a location so it auto plants).


I think discussion on this topic is warranted and would greatly benefit the future of the development and game of GEWar.

That actually does make sense. And I would like to see this discussion as I've been breaking my head over this for a long time.

I think you're on the same track I'm on...which is good. Give limited or less convenient functions to non-donators, but still give them everything to fight equal with a donator. The difference being time vs. money. Those that can't afford to donate or don't see a reason to donate can still play without a severe handicap but it will require more time and energy from them to do so.

Right now the admins/coders are playing so we can root out any issues, and the new player and non-donate issues are very high on the list to be fixed or re-engineered.

That's true, time = money :D
If the player don't have the time, he/she has to invest (donorship = money)
Eventually players can't afford or not willing to invest should stay more active in order to gain the advantages (active = time)

And for those players that are devoted to the game who can invest and stay active can be a brutal force in the gameplay.

So it's the player's choice......just my point of view :)

That's true, time = money :D
If the player don't have the time, he/she has to invest (donorship = money)
Eventually players can't afford or not willing to invest should stay more active in order to gain the advantages (active = time)

And for those players that are devoted to the game who can invest and stay active can be a brutal force in the gameplay.

So it's the player's choice......just my point of view :)

even a brutal force can be caged by player, isn't that an interesting goal too ?

sounds like a possible frame for a more detailed plan, what I read in this thread so far...

This should be the right direction....keep it up :)

There's a lot of active NDs in the game so if they have the chance to make more geos by jeweling etc then I am sure they will all do it. They get targeted now because once they have no citites they don't make geos.

I think when they lose all their cities something should be implemented that it takes 12hours for them to get a city back before income stops completely. It must be frustrating for them to be zeroed while they are asleep and not able to defend cities properly. Just a thought...

Yeah thats all and good, but the simple fact is the donators pay to keep the game up, and the goal should be to get everyone to donate. I understand being broke a bit now and then, I can remember when cash was tight, but come on, this costs nothing. 30$ over a year, if you can not make the what 0.12$ a day then you really have failed in life and spend your time getting a job not playing a game. Its all nice to coddle people and say well your to young to work, but you arnt, and if you were hungry you would find .012$ pretty quick, so prioritize. If you want to play then work. Non donators should need to keep a 5 city min or get no income, no interest and no resources. Non donators should be just for people trying the game for a day or two on lvl 1.
But I can see making donators what non donators are now and adding an other level up that adds more benefits. like maybe 2x army speed all the time. Or instant nukes. Lets be serious, Luke does not make cash off the game cause he is a nice guy, and if he tried to make cash off the game people would take it more serious and might be more players.


There is a formula for this, it is called TANSTAAFL
Since you can afford both internet and a computer look it up on google.

This thead is here because the numbers of game players are going down. I am with Lemon's ideas. Beginners need to make some ground and get hooked on the game. I suggest beginners have all the perks of a donator in lvl 1 and a 30 day period of trial in the real world. ;94

Great suggestion oonw, however I would make it a 30 day period on level 1 as well, otherwise they will stay on level 1 for as long as possible as new rounds start. There would be no point in leveling up when they have all the perks on level 1!

We need new players to join and I get that we all pay to play but without new players joining everyday the game is a failure imo... I pm new guys when I see they have joined but lately it's mostly bots and that's not good at all!

Some of my ideas.


Split the cities at 100k. If city is under 100k it is not attackable by anyone older then 30 days. If a new player is holding a city valued at 100k on their 31st day the militia rises up and kicks them out. This keeps new players from getting railroaded by established players, and keeps them from going broke showing their awesomeness by taking Tokyo. (100k is a moving target...less new players lowers that number)
Change the way score is handled. Make troops incremental. Basically, for every new player troop you kill it is worth .5, For every top player troop you kill it is worth 1.5 ...Still a lot of analysis to do on this.
Change the limits to the game as far as resource and jeweling goes. Let new players and non-donors actually jewel from day one.
A better walk-through for how to play and be more efficient.
Non-donors will only have easy and medium experience. Donors will have Hard and Very Hard (yes higher then 2.0).
New Players will have limits to army size (probably 50k)
Non-donors can only collect X jewels per day. Donors are unlimited.
Non-donors can plant every 36 hours. Donors are every 24 hours with longer life.
Limited bank transfers (with a fee) for donors.


There's more, but these are the one's that I think are possible. I also want to change the way mutes are handled. Change them to jailed and have them affect your in-game play...Maybe keep you guys in line around here (I doubt Luke will allow it)

Hahaha I love. LOVE the jailed idea.

Yeah thats all and good, but the simple fact is the donators pay to keep the game up, and the goal should be to get everyone to donate. I understand being broke a bit now and then, I can remember when cash was tight, but come on, this costs nothing. 30$ over a year, if you can not make the what 0.12$ a day then you really have failed in life and spend your time getting a job not playing a game. Its all nice to coddle people and say well your to young to work, but you arnt, and if you were hungry you would find .012$ pretty quick, so prioritize. If you want to play then work. Non donators should need to keep a 5 city min or get no income, no interest and no resources. Non donators should be just for people trying the game for a day or two on lvl 1.
But I can see making donators what non donators are now and adding an other level up that adds more benefits. like maybe 2x army speed all the time. Or instant nukes. Lets be serious, Luke does not make cash off the game cause he is a nice guy, and if he tried to make cash off the game people would take it more serious and might be more players.


There is a formula for this, it is called TANSTAAFL
Since you can afford both internet and a computer look it up on google.
You should never do business.

The point is to keep people in, not scare people away. Sure, we can make a web game that costs an insane amount to JUST GET STARTED PLAYING. What web games thrive on (Farmville, Tribal Wars, etc.) is that people get addicted, then are willing to pay for the convenience of playing and saving time.

Just as Robotech said, Time = Money. It's the exchange that if I don't have time I can use money, if I have time I can equally be successful.

Also, I don't think you fully understand TANSTAAFL. In short, it says that you can't get something for nothing. What you are doing is that you are devoting your time, possibly spreading word of mouth, increasing GEWar web presence, etc. Someone who spends a lot of time playing as a non-donor can convince friends to join. We may see things such as Facebook as free, but they earn tons on advertising. We may see other web games as free, but they advertise to other people and make money on the select few who value money less than time. I know when I played as a non-donor I would constantly be on, and when people would see me playing, I would explain what it is.

For small games, word of mouth is INSANELY important.


@ Prophet
1. Isn't that just like Level 1 and Level 3?
2. That seems a bit unequal.
3. Yes, yes, yes.
4. Yes.
5. Higher than 2.0 walks a dangerous line, although it does seem interesting. Hard training really does no difference though as prices scale equally.
6. Limits non-donors, oppose.
7. Yes. Although I'm thinking perhaps instead of donors having unlimited, they have an increased cap. You can then buy extra jewels using money in increments. (Trying microtransaction idea, although doesn't seem particularly effective in this case.)
8. Direct inequity between donors and non-donors, oppose.
9. I'm fine with that, but with the current limitations it seems that it would just promote mules.


Taking from the inspiration that drove this. Team Fortress 2 recently released a Store which allows you to buy items, that can all be freely found in game.

"#5. Microtransactions benefit busy people

A lot of people playing Team Fortress 2 aren't college students with endless free time. Many players, like myself, have full time jobs and other responsibilities that come before 10-hour grinding sessions. As I talked about in a previous article about microtransactions, this system allows players who don't have endless free time (but do have some disposable income) to catch up to players with the opposite arrangement."

Note, this is about PURELY cosmetic or otherwise FREE items you could get just by PLAYING the game.


A couple of major problems that comes with trying to make this a profitable game:

Scaling: If this game was to expand to increase donorship, then we'd need to figure out a way to scale the game so that it can take increased user base. The earth is limited in size and cities.

Skill: Right now in my opinion there is little true "skill". What do I define skill as? Playing conclusively better in the same restraints. Right now the game promotes 2 things, absolute greater activity, and saving geos. How can this be seen? Theo comes back mid game and just rolls with big armies, hits top 3. Combination of activity and geos. It does not promote any strategical gambit, it promotes, saving up thousands of geos. Putting in one army. Move around and kill armies.
What this should be replaced with is holding cities. Cities require some semblance of skill to maintain and hold. Holding cities requires time evaluation, estimation of opposing troop force, adequate army scattering (for hit and runs), time understanding (for troops to get there and defend), etc.

@ Prophet
1. Isn't that just like Level 1 and Level 3?
***Level 1 is pointless in my world. I would prefer to use level 1 & 2 for a measure of scalability.
2. That seems a bit unequal.
***No there is a ton more to it. Instead of having 1 troop equals 1 kill it scales all over the place depending on several factors (same alliance, inside city, outside city, nuke, etc, etc.)
3. Yes, yes, yes.
4. Yes.
5. Higher than 2.0 walks a dangerous line, although it does seem interesting. Hard training really does no difference though as prices scale equally.
***Scaling would be different from donor to non-donor.

6. Limits non-donors, oppose.
***Sorry non-donors will be limited. It's the way of the game unless you want us to add trinkets and costumes like Zynga does to sucker you into donating.

7. Yes. Although I'm thinking perhaps instead of donors having unlimited, they have an increased cap. You can then buy extra jewels using money in increments. (Trying microtransaction idea, although doesn't seem particularly effective in this case.)
***Sorry not unlimited but virtually unlimited. Maybe even a way to pay for harvesting (auto-harvesting).

8. Direct inequity between donors and non-donors, oppose.
***You should see how many people actually don't plant at exactly 24 hours...Trust me this isn't much inequality.

9. I'm fine with that, but with the current limitations it seems that it would just promote mules.
***ahh mules. The whole reason we lost bank transfers was because of mules...Some ruin it for others. We would have to counter-measure this and maybe even look into one of Huxy's ideas (think traveling, attackable bank transfer covered wagon...only described cooler).

I also want to rework alliances and give them more of a reason to exist (including appointing war generals, allowing war chest funding and/or resource pooling, making NAPS official, etc.) I also had an idea of an in-game persona where you can affect your army strength, travel speed, etc. with that persona...

Anyway, on with your message:

Scaling: If this game was to expand to increase donorship, then we'd need to figure out a way to scale the game so that it can take increased user base. The earth is limited in size and cities.

I'm working on a way to incorporate more cities (or I was before I stepped out for awhile). Shrink the step size meaning we can incorporate many more cities.

Skill: Right now in my opinion there is little true "skill". What do I define skill as? Playing conclusively better in the same restraints. Right now the game promotes 2 things, absolute greater activity, and saving geos. How can this be seen? Theo comes back mid game and just rolls with big armies, hits top 3. Combination of activity and geos. It does not promote any strategical gambit, it promotes, saving up thousands of geos. Putting in one army. Move around and kill armies.
What this should be replaced with is holding cities. Cities require some semblance of skill to maintain and hold. Holding cities requires time evaluation, estimation of opposing troop force, adequate army scattering (for hit and runs), time understanding (for troops to get there and defend), etc.


***Skill is something that's difficult. Most of the ideas we get are ways to crawl further down the rabbit hole (no pun intended) and make those "skill" factors more of the game instead of less.



Ultimately, the way to make the game profitable (can't say more profitable because it hasn't been profitable yet) is to add more players. Right now I would guess that less then 120 are actively engaged(killed more then 100k troops) in this round. Even if all of you donated right now for a full year...it still wouldn't be profitable...it would be sustained. Not a fun fact, but a fact nonetheless.

And lemon, other than you are right I should never get into business, that's why I live in a shack, I disagree.

We do not want the people who play for two days and go away. We would like the hard core strategy gamer, cause that's what this is. And we want the ones with money, not the high school kids. Sure they should be able to play, but again, time = money.


I dont have the time right now to really debate this, but in short I think a paying customer is 9000% better than a non paying customer.

And lemon, other than you are right I should never get into business, that's why I live in a shack, I disagree.

We do not want the people who play for two days and go away. We would like the hard core strategy gamer, cause that's what this is. And we want the ones with money, not the high school kids. Sure they should be able to play, but again, time = money.


I dont have the time right now to really debate this, but in short I think a paying customer is 9000% better than a non paying customer.
If there was a viable consumer we could get that way. So you're saying I should pay $10 subscription on a web game I have never played before and never got into?

You don't want to be get the people who play for two days. You want to get the people who play a lot. A lot of people who have the time to play a lot want free good games. There are plenty of those, so you want those people to spread to those who want to play good games and do not have time.

I don't know of any exceedingly successful web game that does a system like this. Most do microtransaction-esque or put non-donators and donators on the same level. You can try other games if you want and you'll see it.


2. Yes then, very much so.
5. Meh, I still don't like how that goes.
6. Limiting non donors stifles the user base. Increasing user base increases potential profits. Zynga is the best of its kind. Unless you want to ignore the millions (or is it billions?) of profit they're raking in. Instead of trinkets we give conveniences, not definite bonuses.

One I thought of is giving multiple move orders at once (and auto attack [with 5 minute delay]). So you can tell it to move to x base then move to y city, then attack once it arrives (with 5 minute delay). You lose a little with the convenience, but you don't need to wake up in the terrible hours of the night to attack.

7. Auto harvesting wat? That's like just plain selling geos :P
8. I guess. Although I think 20 donor, 24 non might be more equal.
9. Fun, but I don't see how you would logistically do it.

I would absolutely love to see these kind of changes happen. Maybe some kind of Alpha version feature?

More cities would be good. And a lot of places would get a ton of small cities.

Skill is hard to discuss. I mean right now too often it seems you're running a random number generator against each other to see who wins.

Some of my ideas.


Split the cities at 100k. If city is under 100k it is not attackable by anyone older then 30 days. If a new player is holding a city valued at 100k on their 31st day the militia rises up and kicks them out. This keeps new players from getting railroaded by established players, and keeps them from going broke showing their awesomeness by taking Tokyo. (100k is a moving target...less new players lowers that number)
Change the way score is handled. Make troops incremental. Basically, for every new player troop you kill it is worth .5, For every top player troop you kill it is worth 1.5 ...Still a lot of analysis to do on this.
Change the limits to the game as far as resource and jeweling goes. Let new players and non-donors actually jewel from day one.
A better walk-through for how to play and be more efficient.
Non-donors will only have easy and medium experience. Donors will have Hard and Very Hard (yes higher then 2.0).
New Players will have limits to army size (probably 50k)
Non-donors can only collect X jewels per day. Donors are unlimited.
Non-donors can plant every 36 hours. Donors are every 24 hours with longer life.
Limited bank transfers (with a fee) for donors.


There's more, but these are the one's that I think are possible. I also want to change the way mutes are handled. Change them to jailed and have them affect your in-game play...Maybe keep you guys in line around here (I doubt Luke will allow it)

These are all great ideas Jeremy, I hope we do see them soon.

I love the limits on resources part so that we have to jewel from day 1. The geos at the start of the round should be less as well, 6k is a lot and when starting with that you don't really HAVE to jewel all that much.

So a new player will be considered new for the first 30 days and after that he/she is fair game?

We do not want the people who play for two days and go away. We would like the hard core strategy gamer, cause that's what this is. And we want the ones with money, not the high school kids. Sure they should be able to play, but again, time = money.

I dont have the time right now to really debate this, but in short I think a paying customer is 9000% better than a non paying customer.

You are right, we don't want people to play for 2 days then go away. But you have to ask yourself why they go away? Biggest problem is they can't hold a city. If they stay on level 1 then they have fun because there isn't a lot of people down there so they are able to hold cities etc but as soon as they level up they get zeroed if they take a city without asking and I think that's the biggest problem.

So the city idea of 100k is great by Jeremy, this gives the new players a platform to play on the same level as the donators for the first 30 days.

Peonboss I don't agree with you that we want the hard core strategy gamers. When I started playing the game I knew absolutely nothing about strategy games, I hated them actually and now I am pretty great at this one. It's not that hard, def not hard core haha

Also saying we don't want high school kids is silly, do you even know how many players we have that's still in school and donating? LOADS College/University guys who play and donate, LOADS

O.K. Let's pause for a second and step into reality. Zynga and Netstunt are on two entirely different planes of existence.

Netstunt (us) are a few part time guys that are just coding for fun with no real benefit or motivation other then to create a workable game that people might enjoy. People donate to this game to keep it sustaining.

Zynga is a corporation. They have developers on staff. They have designers on staff. They have business analysts and project managers on staff. They have back-end programmers on staff. They have the need for outside programmers, designers and other consultants. They have invested time and resources into those games for the sole purpose to make money.

...Same goes for Hellbored, Evony, InnoGames (Tribal Wars), etc, etc, etc.

Yes, I would love to have a game similar to Zynga, but in reality that's probably never going to happen. I've seen the difference first-hand and I can honestly say I have had more people on a conf call with them then is on the entire staff here.

...But I get your point. Look at the successful ones and mimic their success without following their failures. I just feel that sometimes I have to remind people that expectations are a weird thing, and expecting us to be like them is a poor expectation to have.

Anyway, as I said there are more ideas in the pipe. The attack sequence is something I'm thinking about as well. I would almost say attack macros but who knows how it will sift outta this brain. The problem with that is the difficulty to code and the fact that we could probably do a defensive or offensive switch for troops or multiple troop types (my favorite) much faster.

Some of the more outlandish ideas involve re-writing the homebase to be more of a homebase where you build buildings that help in attacks and defense, allow you to build separate troop types, gather and store more resources, etc.

Zynga is a corporation. They have developers on staff. They have designers on staff. They have business analysts and project managers on staff. They have back-end programmers on staff. They have the need for outside programmers, designers and other consultants. They have invested time and resources into those games for the sole purpose to make money.

Never buy anything from Zynga. I played poker, bought some chips and now the amoun keeps going off every month, I've paid more then R2000 to them now.
I had to cancel my credit card and get a new one. They said, not the exact words but it comes down to, they can't/wont refund me.

I've been watching this thread since it opened but wanted to see what those "in the know" said before I commented.

Firstly, Prophet, great ideas! They seem really good, would move the game in the direction that a lot of current players want to see, and seem to be in keeping for the most part with where Luke seems to want the game to head to.

Lemon, you have some good ideas and valid points, but they are a little too idealistic for my taste. As Prophet has said, unless you have the business model that the massive game developers do then your approach simply isn't viable. Working in the software industry as I do, I've seen pretty much every business model going across most software sub-areas including games, and trust me when I say that Luke is not operating this as a profit making venture. As Peon and Prophet already said, Luke is a nice guy and doesn't intend to make millions from it. That point is proven by the fact that Luke thanks people personally sometimes for donating, he responds to you on threads such as this, and he listens to player opinion. Name one other game of the type you mention where that happens?

If you want to make this game highly profitable without selling it to one of the massive game developers, Peon is exactly right. You decrease the active time the game requires because the people with the most money in life generally have less time, you target the 25-50 year old male demographic, you give limited amounts of features to non-donators, and it is only then possible to be successful in game if you pay. Unfortunately, the only people who get rich out of these ventures are the ones who are as cut throat as Peon has suggested. Lemon, I don't mean this patronisingly or insultingly, but for you at the age of 18 to say that Peon should never own a business shows some naivety on your part. Peon's post represents the reality of what it takes to be truly profit driven. It's a tough world out there and no one ever got rich by giving stuff away for free. If you can't see how the games you mention make serious amounts of money then you're not looking hard enough. They don't give anything away for free in reality essentially, you have to pay money to be able to compete in game. Sure you can drift around in the game and be mediocre for free, but to seriously compete you need to pay. The point I will come back to at this point though is the fact that Luke doesn't appear to be seeking early retirement through his profits from GEWar so it's unlikely in my opinion that the game will go down the route above while he is owner.

For me, there are 3 key things that have come out of this thread that the game needs to sort out moving forward:

1) More gameplay features, with those Prophet suggested being a great start.

2) Some clear benefits to becoming a donator, whether these be added features, streamlined gameplay, or automated game processes.

3) Newbie protection on level 3.

I think if those things are addressed, more players will naturally stay and donate. After that, it's all down to Luke's marketing strategy. Whatever happens though, I don't agree that non-donators should ever be on equal terms to donators. Whilst it's a lovely ideology and in a perfect world we'd all get everything for free, unfortunately it just isn't realistic and in reality you get what you pay for.

I agree that Zynga is obviously big and Netstunt is no where near it, but say there was a profit to be made rather than just breaking even. This would stimulate development, and the game itself. I'm not really talking along the lines of millions, but how about we move it into a decent profitability stage?

@ Raging - I don't see Luke not wanting the profit if there was any to be made :P

Web games and the games Peon talk about are completely different. Web games are driven by advertising, donations, and tons of views. TANSTAAFL does not apply because views and players are themselves good publicity, and good spreaders of the game. Views and players are almost money in themselves (views directly correlating to search engine placement).

There is a very little chance the game can spread if the price to subscribe and start playing successfully is almost equal to the cost of a full fledged game, with 3D graphics and its own proprietary engine, without being hooked into the game. In addition, with all those other free alternatives out, you are alienating a potential group of profit. Also, I have played quite a few games that do give you a legitimate chance as a free player. The activity (and the effort I want to put in), do not match so I can't win. It's easier to have the results you want if you pay a little money, so usually people who pay money are more successful with the same effort. This does not say people with a lot of time are not successful. I do believe a very, LARGE portion of Zynga, etc. groups do not pay.

If you distinctly separate non-donors from donors, many new players will see the inequity and just leave. I know I am not going to spend $30 on a years subscription unless I feel like I'm really into it. Some may not be, but I believe many would follow my viewpoint. [In the end, this can tie into economics, if there is a substitute good that has greater utility than GEWar (i.e. another game), then they won't play GEWar]

@ Raging - I don't see Luke not wanting the profit if there was any to be made :P

Yeah I know man, I wasn't saying Luke would turn down the opportunity to make more cash out of GEWar, I was just saying that at present it clearly isn't what he is aiming at that's all.

Web games and the games Peon talk about are completely different. Web games are driven by advertising, donations, and tons of views. TANSTAAFL does not apply because views and players are themselves good publicity, and good spreaders of the game. Views and players are almost money in themselves (views directly correlating to search engine placement).

Actually it has a lot to do with TANSTAAFL. Although I knew what it stood for, I didn't realise the history behind the phrase. Apparently it comes from the 19th century American saloon practice of offering a free lunch to anyone who had purchased at least 1 drink. However, obviously the lunch wasn't free because the customer had already bought a drink. In addition, many of the saloons offering this deal made it all you can eat but charged more for their drinks. The final hook was that the more you eat, the more you would need to drink, so in turn you buy more drinks that are priced higher.

The same principle applies to almost all web games that I've seen. As I said before, whilst you can play many web games for free, you can't compete unless you pay and so just end up just taking part. The revenue these games make from passing web traffic is a separate part of their business model, afterall as with GEWar then these games are looking to hook players in. They make their real money from getting players to pay for additional features/capabilities/in-game money, not from the fractions of a cent they make from passing web traffic clicking on adverts. To get players hooked in, the games generally start off with some form of newbie protection or easier scenario where the player easily succeeds with the free account. Once a period of time or percentage of gameplay is over, the game then steadily increases in difficulty, be that in the scenarios a player faces or that the human opponents around them pay for extra features. Many of these games then offer the player the opportunity to win points in-game that can be used to "buy" additional features without handing over cash. Conveniently, the first feature can be bought solely with points, plus even more conveniently the player will notice dramatic improvements in their ability to succeed. Before long, the game gets more difficult again and the player then has the choice of abandoning the game or paying for the first cheap feature that will help them - this first purchase quite often comes with points that can be used towards purchasing other features (making them seem cheaper). As the final hook, the initial features that a player needs to pay for are cheap, before then steadily increasing in value in line with the effect that the feature being bought has on a players ability or potential for success. To ensure recurring revenue even once a player has maxed out the features they can buy, many web games put a time limit on the most effective features when purchased before they expire, thereby requiring the player to rebuy the feature.

To bring it back to TANSTAAFL, the initial gameplay and possibly the first feature will may be free, but it is all designed to bring the player to a point of either having to abandon all they have achieved and walk away, or instead having to pay so they haven't wasted their time. The game developers very cleverly manipulate human psychology and exploit a person's desire to complete what they have started. With that in mind, is it really that much different to letting people have an all you can eat meal when you're selling overpriced drinks?

There is a very little chance the game can spread if the price to subscribe and start playing successfully is almost equal to the cost of a full fledged game, with 3D graphics and its own proprietary engine, without being hooked into the game. In addition, with all those other free alternatives out, you are alienating a potential group of profit.

A 1 month donatorship in GEWar costs $6. I don't know of any mainstream console or PC games that are that cheap, certainly not new releases anyway.

However, I would suggest that possibly offering a 1 week donatorship for $2 might be a good idea. Afterall, people pay more than that for magazines with a cover CD full of "free" trial versions.

If you distinctly separate non-donors from donors, many new players will see the inequity and just leave. I know I am not going to spend $30 on a years subscription unless I feel like I'm really into it. Some may not be, but I believe many would follow my viewpoint. [In the end, this can tie into economics, if there is a substitute good that has greater utility than GEWar (i.e. another game), then they won't play GEWar]

GEWar is a very unique game due to its use of real life cities on Google Earth. If the game had more features and was a true live version then it would be extremely marketable due to this uniqueness. Also, as I said above, you don't have to spend $30 when first donating so that isn't what puts people off donating.

I still say that newbie protection, clear benefits for donating, plus a good marketing strategy would see GEWar really take off. Obviously before that can happen, many additional features and areas of game mechanics need to be refined, however the potential is there for GEWar to be extremely successful without Luke having to reinvent the wheel.

Zynga isn't only big, but they are a completely different model. As different as NFP and Fortune 100. Different motivations. Different mindset. I think the focus needs to be on sustainability right now (no owner subsidizing). From there then we can look at making it for profit, but that brings about other discussions about ownership and/or payment for time. Lotta meaty discussions that we currently avoid with the "For Fun" model.

Anyway, definitely keep giving ideas. No matter if your ideas are coming from the "donors and hardcore gamers only" point of view, or some other point of view. I know that playing this round has changed some of my views of the game, and its help to clear some of the mental walls that got built over time.

@ Raging - Setting down an infrastructure for a profitable game starts earlier, rather than later.

Facebook and Google earn billions from advertising :P Advertising has heavy profitability, but it requires many people. Few people means basically no money from advertising. (Also, protip, if you click ads, I heard it's like 1 dollar a click)

I know of several examples where games do not require the use of money to play successfully at all. Zynga's Poker game requires nothing, just be decent a poker and have fun. Move your way up tourneys. Utopia the game is very successful and requires absolutely no money to move up in the game. Tribal Wars does not require money, and money only makes conveniences (queued buildings), graphical or convenience based (http://wiki.tribalwars.net/wiki/Premium_Accounts) [which is also what I'd personally like to see]. Farmville I believe requires nothing, but to be among the most successful some are willing to pay money instead of waste time constantly checking their stuff.

I do not necessarily like Zynga's expiration (or Nexon's), but there are other profit models for online web games that we can work towards to.

For one month, perhaps. For one year it's $30. You can find some older games, and you play them, forever without losing features (sometimes even gaining features from patches).

All games are unique in some way :P
And if you pay $6 for a month as a trial, that's basically paying 20% of a year, but only getting 1/12th of the benefits, which makes 1 month seem really expensive.

I do agree with newbie protection and marketing. I like the fundamentals of the game and definitely think something can be done to make it more commercially viable.


@ Prophet, well yes, but their model definitely started small, but with the same infrastructure. Laying down the infrastructure for no owner subsidization to profit should be the goal at the moment. If we build for solely subsidization, something else will have to be implemented or changed for their to ever reach profit (or reimbursement of previous owner subsidization).



Also, another idea. Paying for your own GEWar Earth. Like if you want to set up a war against a specific alliance with specific things then you can do so, but you have to pay for the server. So for example if Warhhammer wanted to war WTO on fair grounds, each party could nominate 20 of their best (or against all of WTO if WTO/Warhammer agrees), pay money to have their own "earth" and see who does best.

Or if someone has a grudge/time they want to spend, they can set up their own no alliance earth and fight out to see who is the best solo player.

Or if any alliance wants to see who is the best in the alliance, they can set up their own earth too.

Parameters can be set (time, resources, geos in bank, geos, etc.) and it could range from cheap to expensive, depending on how many unique things the user wants added or changed.

@ Raging - Setting down an infrastructure for a profitable game starts earlier, rather than later.

Granted, but tell me something I don't know - the same goes for any business, regardless of product or market sector. The reality though with the type of business model you're talking about here is that whilst it may have examples of being profitable, that comes with a lot of down sides that you aren't considering - setup costs, maintenance costs, staff costs, legal costs, general business costs, taxes, higher insurance rates (plus additional types of insurance being required), and many many more. That's before you even get to considering the cost in time that all of these take just to get the business going and remaining operational.

The large game developers you've mentioned struggle to keep all those elements in check, imagine how much time, effort, and money is required for someone like Luke to put that in place. Add to that the fact we're currently in a global recession and the opportunity for a game operating as GEWar does to emulate the profitability of some of the games you've mentioned narrows further.

Some of your ideas are interesting Lemon and are definitely worth consideration by the powers that be in this game. I think the lower level concepts you're discussing very much fit with the reality of operating a game like this, with some of the concepts you suggest being a good route forward to boosting GEWar's appeal. However, without wishing to put your argument down or be negative, your higher level discussion regarding trying to emulate the way in which the renowned game developers operate is just too unrealistic for the way GEWar operates in my opinion, not to mention conflicting with what I think Luke's aspirations are for the game.

Granted, but tell me something I don't know - the same goes for any business, regardless of product or market sector. The reality though with the type of business model you're talking about here is that whilst it may have examples of being profitable, that comes with a lot of down sides that you aren't considering - setup costs, maintenance costs, staff costs, legal costs, general business costs, taxes, higher insurance rates (plus additional types of insurance being required), and many many more. That's before you even get to considering the cost in time that all of these take just to get the business going and remaining operational.

The large game developers you've mentioned struggle to keep all those elements in check, imagine how much time, effort, and money is required for someone like Luke to put that in place. Add to that the fact we're currently in a global recession and the opportunity for a game operating as GEWar does to emulate the profitability of some of the games you've mentioned narrows further.

Some of your ideas are interesting Lemon and are definitely worth consideration by the powers that be in this game. I think the lower level concepts you're discussing very much fit with the reality of operating a game like this, with some of the concepts you suggest being a good route forward to boosting GEWar's appeal. However, without wishing to put your argument down or be negative, your higher level discussion regarding trying to emulate the way in which the renowned game developers operate is just too unrealistic for the way GEWar operates in my opinion, not to mention conflicting with what I think Luke's aspirations are for the game.
Many of these costs are already mitigated partially. Setup and maintenance are largely cared for. Legal and insurance are basically nonexistent for web games (You basically sign off on everything admins do in the ToS). Staff perhaps, but that would be much later in the line. Taxes, I don't think people would mind as there would be a profit made. Most is already setup as Luke is already taking in donations. What isn't setup is the infrastructure to earn money.

Of course, there is a lot to do, but as a community if we can make it legitimately appealing enough that Luke would like to see this happen (better game and "possible" profits), then I don't see him shying away from the prospect.

Yes, it's a large endeavour. For the longest time I believe Luke has been running this from his pocket. If we change it to profitable, we can expand the game, and we can get more dedication to coding the features we all want.

Edit: Also, I think marketing this as a hard-core product, for hard-core strategy players proves counter productive. True hard-core strategy players play games with more skill. Like I said above, skill needs to be implemented. If we can make it casual, we would attract more people in. IMO, the game isn't very hard-core strategy as it is.

I don't really have a lot more to add to what I've said, but the up front costs of what you're suggesting really are much higher than what you think. If it was so easy, with limited costs and red tape involved, and only guaranteed profit waiting at the end, why don't we all have millions in the bank made from a web game we each operate?

Legal costs will be one of the main overheads by the way. There are the legal costs involved in setting up such a venture, then ongoing if the game is as successful as those mentioned then you will have to deal with people trying to steal the idea/concept, you have copyright and intellectual property issues to deal with, potential staff disputes, and the list goes on and on. The ToS agreement that you mention, that requires a lawyer, as does the ongoing maintenance of the ToS agreement. In addition, much more is required than that one document if we're talking about an operation the size you're talking about. This is just one of the areas where the costs can mount up very quickly, plus a lot of money is required up front.

In business, you need to be able to walk before you can start running. As Prophet said, the first stage is to recover your costs, to break even. At that point, you can stop, take a look around with some clear air, then make a decision as to the direction you take. Making GEWar profitable is one thing and in my opinion that can be achieved with the current ownership model and some good ideas like Prophet has talked about and like you've mentioned Lemon. However, trying to adopt the business model that Zynga uses is an entirely different matter, and likely requires a level of soul selling that I just don't think a nice guy like Luke is capable of from what little I know of him (that's a compliment by the way).

You guys should read up a bit on Zynga. They were never small. They have Google backing of over 100 million. Their current projections for 2011 are over 500 million. Inno on the other hand did start out small in 2003, but they have huge funding as well. Maybe we can auction off Luke to a rich family, and then we can start having some real fun around here.

Profitability would be nice, but really the game needs to sustain first and allow the owner of the game time to analyze that next step. I think we're about 1/4 of the way there.

Even the thought of a for profit model hurts my head and is something I'm not even going to discuss in public to great detail...Too much intellectual property in that discussion. I will say that I think you are grossly underestimating the cost involved.

Totally agree make it happen make gewar big!!!!

Yeah and not to seriously piss on the parade, but no one is ever going to get rich off this game.Even if it got 2000 new players tomorrow and started to make a real profit, it is still, only viable with the consent of Google. If it was making cash Google would expect a good hunk. It will never be more than a hobby, but I hope we can find a way to make it a break even one.

Yeah and not to seriously piss on the parade, but no one is ever going to get rich off this game.Even if it got 2000 new players tomorrow and started to make a real profit, it is still, only viable with the consent of Google. If it was making cash Google would expect a good hunk. It will never be more than a hobby, but I hope we can find a way to make it a break even one.

So I have a question for everyone. How many players is too many players for one level of this game. My estimation is 1500, but what does everyone else think.

3
:)

I amuse myself.

So I have a question for everyone. How many players is too many players for one level of this game. My estimation is 1500, but what does everyone else think.

That's an interesting question. Are we only considering an active player count or the number of players with an account on the level?

Active players or playing players. They don't have to all be Laoma, jw, or Peonboss, but just planting resource, going for cities, etc.

Next question, does the sub-culture of this game allow for any growth in this game? Currently, we live in this political setting where 70% of the world is on good terms and constantly targeting the other 30%. Would adding more players lessen that effect or make it worse. I know that even with my never-ending love for this game after 4 weeks of playing even I've thought about quiting.

So I have a question for everyone. How many players is too many players for one level of this game. My estimation is 1500, but what does everyone else think.
If my counting isn't wrong, we have 1366 cities. So since holding only a few cities isn't getting you anywhere the way the game is, assume everyone wants 5. Would be about 273players, which means the current 237 active is already pretty close.

Of course, this assumes everyone is aiming for the same etc.
Currently, city distribution is as follows:
Avg 11.1803278688525 cities / player
Sum 1364 cities occupied
Median 6 cities / player

Either way, >500 for a single level is guaranteed to be too much (at most 2 cities/player??). Or the game would have to change the importance of cities, so less cities would still be working out.

If my counting isn't wrong, we have 1366 cities. So since holding only a few cities isn't getting you anywhere the way the game is, assume everyone wants 5. Would be about 273players, which means the current 237 active is already pretty close.

Of course, this assumes everyone is aiming for the same etc.
Currently, city distribution is as follows:
Avg 11.1803278688525 cities / player
Sum 1364 cities occupied
Median 6 cities / player

Either way, >500 for a single level is guaranteed to be too much (at most 2 cities/player??). Or the game would have to change the importance of cities, so less cities would still be working out.

Alright so what if I was able to change the step size from 90 to about 1/3 that size allowing us to add 2-3 times the current city count. Then what's that count look like.

Alright so what if I was able to change the step size from 90 to about 1/3 that size allowing us to add 2-3 times the current city count. Then what's that count look like.
And make armies slower by that same factor? Would be weird otherwise.

Having 3 times as many cities, but taking 3 times longer would mean the amount of cities reachable per player in a set time would be the same as now - but 3 times more cities.

820 players using the same numbers as above.

Added benefit might be that alliances get to be much more territorial, like states in the real world. "Playing with the world" on a different scale :D I think that would be good for classical strategies, but I have no idea if other players think the same ;) Might be too far off from the current "hey, let's hold all of $continent for this reset"...

Active players or playing players. They don't have to all be Laoma, jw, or Peonboss, but just planting resource, going for cities, etc.

Next question, does the sub-culture of this game allow for any growth in this game? Currently, we live in this political setting where 70% of the world is on good terms and constantly targeting the other 30%. Would adding more players lessen that effect or make it worse. I know that even with my never-ending love for this game after 4 weeks of playing even I've thought about quiting.

With Martok's stats, I'd say 300-500 per level would be about right. Competitive and challenging, but still enough cities to go round. Cities are not nearly as important as many think they are, although that is based on current game terms for bank access etc.

To be fair Prophet, you've started playing again on what is an absolutely dire round so far, definitely the worst and least fun round I've played so far. Last round wasn't the best round for GEWar globally when it came to wars and balance, however compared to this round then last round was positively action packed! Two rounds ago, there were 8-10 alliances that were a decent size and had many others of similar sizes to fight, plus there were many other alliances of a smaller but effective size too. Unfortunately that isn't the case now so you're probably not seeing what I would consider to be a typical GEWar round.

And make armies slower by that same factor? Would be weird otherwise.

Having 3 times as many cities, but taking 3 times longer would mean the amount of cities reachable per player in a set time would be the same as now - but 3 times more cities.

820 players using the same numbers as above.

Added benefit might be that alliances get to be much more territorial, like states in the real world. "Playing with the world" on a different scale :D I think that would be good for classical strategies, but I have no idea if other players think the same ;) Might be too far off from the current "hey, let's hold all of $continent for this reset"...

As a rough guess using gut feeling, it's by no means scientific, I'd say this would seem about right too.

I think some would struggle due to the reasons Martok outlines. The fact is that some players and alliances do the same thing every round, round after round. Having to change their strategy would likely put some players off. That said, I think if there was a number of players that would warrant 3 times as many cities, it would be a great change if the scale of wars was reduced to sub-continents or individual countries and it would really increase the options available to alliances when planning for rounds. From a player's perspective, that would certainly allow alliances to keep things new and interesting every round.

Yes it would make armies a bit slower, but with auto attacking that makes them far more effective and helps divide up the map. Maybe we just rewrite the stepping procedure for the armies so they don't overshoot targets and can handle partial steps...Then we can keep the speed equal for armies while increasing the amount of cities.

And make armies slower by that same factor? Would be weird otherwise.

Having 3 times as many cities, but taking 3 times longer would mean the amount of cities reachable per player in a set time would be the same as now - but 3 times more cities.

820 players using the same numbers as above.

Added benefit might be that alliances get to be much more territorial, like states in the real world. "Playing with the world" on a different scale :D I think that would be good for classical strategies, but I have no idea if other players think the same ;) Might be too far off from the current "hey, let's hold all of $continent for this reset"...

Cities are not nearly as important as many think they are, although that is based on current game terms for bank access etc.Not if we have score or something comparable. But if we don't, city value is the only ranking mechanism available - although having fun does not have to mean to aim for No 1.

To be fair Prophet, you've started playing again on what is an absolutely dire round so far, definitely the worst and least fun round I've played so far.Only if you have to work for your living - if you can just grab the fallout and become 2nd, it's pretty funny ;banana (not that I want anyone to take that away, though...)

That said, I think if there was a number of players that would warrant 3 times as many cities, it would be a great change if the scale of wars was reduced to sub-continents or individual countries and it would really increase the options available to alliances when planning for rounds. From a player's perspective, that would certainly allow alliances to keep things new and interesting every round.
Absolutely right! That's where I was getting at.
It would mean a shift from the saving -> all out war -> peace treaty -> saving pattern to something more "informal", allowing you to be at constant war with those around you about cities that nobody would spend anything on today. It would even make NAPs less of a pain - they would be most likely temporary anyway. One day, you would have to break them to get anywhere - and everyone would know that.
If your alliance was situated in Tanzania, it would really mean something wether you went to attack north to Riyadh or southbound to Cape Town (if that was even possible).
The game would shift much more towards a WW2 type of setting, with many different factions, possibly aligned in informal leagues, battling with pretty much everyone. I have always been a fan of that style, but most alliances won't do that - mainly because the current game does not reward it, but much more to put 200k in Tokyo and just wait out the round.

Wait a second - city COUNT might be something to rank for, too. At least if count was somewhat related to area covered, as that would be much harder to keep than today.

Me liketh :dwarf


@Prophet: so, basically we need an Alpha game for the Alpha game? :cheesy

@Martok. City value is not a real ranking mechanism. It is only a day-to-day tree instead of the forest part of the game. See the Hall of Fame page for what really matters. Kills matter. It's the reason why the top city hoarders are actually not even top 50 players this round. Playing for city value is sooo 2006.

I'm working on a way to release the player ranking on a weekly basis to show who the top players really are...Stop people from playing so many political games. Basically, in the game today, the more NAPs you have the worse you finish. The top 10 is full of those non-political players.

as for score. That's been debated and will continue to be debated on how to do it. The old score system was really flawed and wouldn't really work in this game.

I think I just fell in love with a man named Jeremy hahahaha

You do what you just said and I bet there will be more activity in the game...

Playing for city value is sooo 2006.
Well well... *checks how long he's been gone* About 2 years, last forum post was in Oct 2008. Am I excused? :D

Seeing the current HoF-Ranking would be cool and would definitely encourage more activity and draw more players. NOW: how to get them to donate? More players means more server load means bigger machines, better networking etc -> higher cost, so we didn't win anything here.

Minecraft has been making a sh*tload of money and it's not even close to finished... maybe that same strategy would be good? Giving out something for free, but for the real deal, you have to pay? Not really good for a browser game; but 10€ from 400players would come pretty close to break-even, would it (I have no idea)?

@ Raging - Well, there is the fact that many don't have the infrastructure this game already has. Or the player base. We have a relatively good and dedicated player base to this game already. It's not saying that all games are successful, but I see possible potential.

Legal, perhaps, but we obviously start small. I'm not saying we instantly become multimillion corporation, but that we can pull some growth in.

I do agree. But the path to breaking even is the path to profitability. Structuring your business solely around breaking even makes little to no sense. The reason why I state Zynga is that they definitely are the most successful of all web game developers.

@ Prophet - Maybe we could get Google backing ;)

I just think that the process to breaking even is the same process to making a profit. Perhaps I am underestimating it, but perhaps you are overestimating it.

@ Peonboss - I don't see Google as the kind to squash GEWar into the ground. And anyways, I'm not trying to make it make millions and millions of dollars in profit, but like maybe enough to fund some minor expansion.


Also, at the cities thing, I don't believe troops killed is at all indicative of any reasonable stat. What it says is how many geos did I save and spend constantly against people. In the end, troops killed only correlates with geos earned in a round.

What cities does as a larger measure of skill is because to hold cities you have to defend wisely. Large troop counts can get nuked. You must account for hit and runs. Time travel for armies, etc. You can have lots of geos, but holding cities proves far more difficult than just killing troops.

Also, the reason why there are so many NAPs is because there are not enough equal sized enemies that alliances can face. Just look at the two major wars last round. WTO vs Predaliens, 70 vs 40. 3rd World vs BoB, 40 vs 20. With such inequity there is no chance at wars for territory as in they result in absolute stomp or absolute fail. The way to make NAPs less prevalent is make legitimate targets to attack and to make cities valuable. If I remember right there was war in Alpha all the time. Ghaznavi vs Vulture. There was a legitimate reason to hold cities as they were EXTREMELY valuable, and there was a legitimate reason to fight or them. In addition, the teams were relatively equal so any push could be reversed, and big wars would break out and then stop due to damages.

And this boils down to one of my last points. War is not all out. There is a motive to it. Motiveless wars (troops killed is relatively motiveless) are dumb. Cities should be our motives to war, we want cities to be considered the winner. If kills are our motive, we might as well just run number generators against each other.

EDIT: Also, another perhaps good idea. Lets donators not have captchas. People who donate usually would not bot (due to already putting down a fiscal investment into the game). But at the same time, no unlimited jeweling. Slightly increased jewel cap and the ability to purchase more jewels. This would convenience-wise make jeweling easier and make jeweling a popular way of earning money while not being a direct selling of geos.

good idea on the no captcha. Definitely something to look in to. I thought about doing a different kind of ad system in the new layout where we could cut them down severely for donors, or maybe give donors the ability to turn them on or off in their preferences. Another thing is the reward system so many of the other games use, but those are borderline malicious so we would have to be careful there.

I like that ad idea. It's one that's used quite often too. I know at least Utopia (another game), does that, and tf2items (useful resource) does that for their site too.

I am confused at what you mean by the Reward System and how it can be malicious though.

If you look at Mafia Wars or Hobo Wars they offer a coin system where you fill out forms or contest whatever to earn extra coins. Then those coins can be used for in-game items. It's the carrot on a string technique.

Unfortunately, many of those "win a free laptop" or survey systems are looked at as shady (maybe malicious was too strong) or are black listed by most corporations because of their ties to spyware/adware.

I would never do those. And I have to say, it is malicious. I used to go on Gaiaonline and that system's implementation (without blacklists) resulted in thousands of users getting infected by malware.

I do not conclusively say that carrot on the string is bad, but those reward systems are absolutely terrible.

The only way to get more people to play this game is to advertise. I have never seen anything about this game in computer or gaming magazines. GEWar should be using free services like YouTube and such. Put some badass music to a tank with a bright orange line moving across google earth. Maybe have some captions after you take a city with explosions or something. You have to make people wonder what this games about and join.

Also I did see a video on YouTube that was pretty funny it had some cows talking. Just put gewar in search on YouTube. Sorry can't copy paste link.

micropayments.

instead of charging a large chunk to unlock features, just charge smaller amounts for features that players want or need.

buying geos has always been frowned upon, but as movember demonstrates, maybe it isn't a bad idea. going forward, profits in november can be donated from the game to the cause.

spending a dollar here and there to have an advantage is the direction most online games are going. in our example, spending a dollar for 10 army splits, or 10 army intercepts, or 1000 geos may increase the number of transactions and income without outright selling a $30 payment for one year's worth of stuff.

this would also make sense for the players that do not like jewel hunting and bank until they have enough geos to attack. they can play more frequently.

I agree with you brett. I would gladly donate to this game monthly for extra things. The main one would be geos. Can't fight with out those.